No, not at all. My advice to small publishers is (a) seek consolidation, whether by selling out to a larger company or by developing publishing consortia (b) be very careful about working with aggregators, whose success often undermines subscriptions (c) steer clear of Open Access, including declining to publish authors who self-archive (d) if the journal is owned by a professional society, regularly inform the membership how much higher their dues will be if publishing revenues drop (e) petition elected representatives to get the NIH and other governmental bodies to get out of publishing (f) seek new revenue streams by repackaging material (new sales channels, licensed archives, etc.) (g) most importantly, make every effort to publish the finest work in the field--there is no substitute for editorial excellence (h) begin to experiment with INEXPENSIVE author-pays hosting schemes, something between arXiv and BMC, which strip away most of the costs associated with editorial review (e.g., prepublication peer review) (i) aggressively pursue search-engine marketing, bypassing library portals (j) actively market the journal's role in certification to its readership (k) be wary of marketing plans whose success is largely built upon price increases. This list can go on and on. There is a great deal that a publisher, big or small, could do. What they should NOT do is put valuable time into OA. Publishers should defend THEIR interests, just as librarians and authors do theirs, as one would expect. Joe Esposito